If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Autocar gets to take a spin in the upcoming Porsche 991 Turbo S

Porsche just seems to be hitting home run after home run with the 991 generation 911. After the introduction of the spectacular 991 generation GT3 the next car to come is the Turbo / Turbo S. Both versions will debut at the same time and Autocar got to experience the more powerful Turbo S which has 560 horsepower (40 more than the standard Turbo). So what is the new 991 generation Turbo like to drive?

The reviewer calls it wild. Compared to the GT3's finesse and sharp response the Turbo is more of a beast. 0-60 in a quoted (and likely conservative) 2.9 seconds? Yeah, that'll put some hair on your chest.

Unfortunately this is not a true road test with actual performance numbers. Still, this is one of the first videos of an automotive journalist getting their hands on this vehicle. It will be interesting to see what kind of performance numbers the Turbo S puts up. Mid 10's stock? Sure looks like that is within the realm of possibility.

Home Run is a little ambitious, especially considering that Porsche has completely dropped the MT from their flagship models (911 Turbo, Turbo S, GT3 & probably the GT2).... I love the PDK but because no one has really pushed it on the 997.2, there's no guarantees or expectations on how it'll handle aggressive modding

Home Run is a little ambitious, especially considering that Porsche has completely dropped the MT from their flagship models (911 Turbo, Turbo S, GT3 & probably the GT2).... I love the PDK but because no one has really pushed it on the 997.2, there's no guarantees or expectations on how it'll handle aggressive modding

I consider the 991 GT3 gaining the PDK a home run and the 991 Turbo S is not exactly going to be slower than the previous gen.

What are they getting wrong other than the lack of a manual which is simply an economics issue? More people buy the PDK, the PDK performs better, from a performance standpoint they hit it out of the park. Imagine if the GT3 had a manual and no PDK... this is the better solution.

What are they getting wrong other than the lack of a manual which is simply an economics issue? More people buy the PDK, the PDK performs better, from a performance standpoint they hit it out of the park. Imagine if the GT3 had a manual and no PDK... this is the better solution.

The GT3 is bought by track junkies or people who really appreciate the engineering... If people want the most expensive 911, they buy the Turbo/Turbo S.

I understand the economics & business tact behind adding the PDK to all of these cars (more people who are too lazy to learn how to drive an MT can now purchase them), and I won't dispute the consistency of performance you get with a PDK, but to drop the Manual Trans all together is just wrong.

Look at what happened with BMW when they've tried twice now to drop the MT out of the M5 (E60 + F10), people flipped out, started canceling orders, and BMW had to eat crow and add an MT in the M5. I don't think Porsche should not include a PDK option in their cars, but it def shouldn't mean the MT has to be discontinued altogether.

I think a lot of the reason for the switch to PDK/DSG (dual-clutch) is due to the gains in fuel efficiency. They can control more (e.g. shift points, coasting downhill, etc.) of the car, and prevent any bias from being introduced on both the fuel econ side of things, and more importantly the performance side of things. Porsche doesn't want to see 3 magazines get a 0-100 time of 9.XX when 2 others are getting 8.1s - if they can reduce the amount of variables to affect the outcome, they will do it.

The other thing is torque and the almost exponential increase in power over the past decade. There will be fewer parts ruined, fewer claims made, and this again equals a better name for Porsche, and keeps owners out of the service room (making for a likely future customer). It's not too tricky to drive a manual transmission car - and once you learn the car, you can get pretty consistent. In other countries, the manual was chosen because of economy and performance. Once the Dual Clutches came - even places like the UK, where in and up until the year 2000, the take rate on a manual was a ridiculous 87%. Since 2000, and the release of a good "automatic" option (again, giving you both more performance and more economy) - and up until 2011 - the take rate is now 40% (I will dig the article up if you want). That's a HUGE difference. We are the only ones asking for this, and for what valid reason?

I think what it shows is a general attitude we have in the US. If you read Jalopnik (http://jalopnik.com/5694777/67-of-ve...-transmissions) - look at how that is written. It's a joke. It gets a TON worse when you read the comments. Here's a good one: PlayerX: Every time I see a Ferrari or an Aston, it's some idiot's car who bought the paddle shift.. People refuse to learn for themselves, and take articles like that to heart.

For some reason, we are the only country that I know of that thinks this way. I really don't understand it. We equate a manual with "better" whether it's skill today or because of superior performance in the past... People read these things, and think "oh, if I get a manual, people are going to think less of me as a driver, and that I bought this car for non-performance reasons"...

My point is, instead of looking at the raw data, and realizing the whole point of a performance car is to get from A to B in the least amount of time possible, and to learn the car's every subtle dynamic (which DCT helps since you can pay more attention/not have much weight transfer mid-shift) like we do for everything else BUT transmissions, we decide to ignore it. We are okay with turbos because they add performance, e-diffs and traction/stability control systems that are more "nanny" than any transmission - because again, they add performance. But, if someone gets a "paddle shift" car, it's worse than punching a baby in the head while wearing a dress (assuming a male here).

Every other country seems to be ahead of us in this regard, whether it's the manual transmission take rate of the past, or the higher DCT take rate now. If you are going to buy a performance car, why would you put a variable in it just because someone said it makes you a "real" enthusiast? This is old school thinking. Yes, it's fun to do an occasional clutch kick - and it's genuinely satisfying to nail a perfect heel/toe - but is that worth a 10% performance penalty when the whole point of the car is performance? I honestly think it's more for show than for any other valid reason in the US.

One last thing (lol, this is getting long) - if Porsche can focus less on something (not engineering two separate versions of the car) - we get a better overall car. I think that's one of the reasons we are seeing these ridiculously awesome cars today. I am all for it - and yes, I agree it would be nice to have the option.

However, if it's between us having a manual option or us having a better overall, purposely engineered car? I don't mind it one bit. If Porsche can make a better chassis because of less shift shock on the drivetrain, or a better launch control, or better whatever - instead of taking time to offer something we only want "just because", I think they are doing the right thing. Especially when we are paying 140k+ to get the performance.

This is my rant - and is against no one but people that call people "idiots" for buying a performance transmission in a performance car (re: Jalopnik). Again, it's nice to have an option for personal reasons, but not because it's the "cool" thing to have.

The GT3 is bought by track junkies or people who really appreciate the engineering... If people want the most expensive 911, they buy the Turbo/Turbo S.

I understand the economics & business tact behind adding the PDK to all of these cars (more people who are too lazy to learn how to drive an MT can now purchase them), and I won't dispute the consistency of performance you get with a PDK, but to drop the Manual Trans all together is just wrong.

Look at what happened with BMW when they've tried twice now to drop the MT out of the M5 (E60 + F10), people flipped out, started canceling orders, and BMW had to eat crow and add an MT in the M5. I don't think Porsche should not include a PDK option in their cars, but it def shouldn't mean the MT has to be discontinued altogether.

The most expensive is the GT2 but I don't see what the cost has to do with anything. The GT3 RS 4.0 is far more expensive than the Turbo so what are you saying?

I wish Porsche offered the manual but if you have to choose one to offer they made the right choice.

BMW just adds the manual for the American market the rest of the world doesn't even care or bother. It's going to go away in the M5 pretty soon too.

I'm German, grew up there, and I visit my folks twice a year... people in Germany learn on 5-6MT cars for their license, but have zero "romantic" attachment to it. The PDK-S is developed for the GT3, and the car was designed with that in mind. Since the the GT3 (RS) models are mainly for the track or some Auobahn fun (the majority of german buyers) the PDK makes sense, although I find it somewhat alien as well that one of the last bastions of manual transmissions within the automotive world has fallen. I love stick shift, and I'll buy them as long as they make them, but Porsche has to keep making the fastest cars in Germany as part of their heritage and pedigree, and that means putting in the fastest transmissions in their cars.

Ferrari has been doing it for a long time, and it is totalyl accepted at this point, Porsche will follow... which is a little sad, but just makes sense.

guys nobody can debate the fact that dct's are the superior solution at this point, but for me personally even if i was buying a hard core track car like a gt3 I would still want a manual for the enjoyment standpoint. I have driven and owned every kind of transmission, 6mt,auto,dct,smg. Now if I was racing for competition I would want the fastest solution possible, if I want a car for my driving pleasure and some casual weekend track days, I want the most enjoyable solution. And I disagree that they saved money by doing this, they could have used one of there manual gear boxes from a prior model. I just dont see the logic behind not giving the customer an option.

guys nobody can debate the fact that dct's are the superior solution at this point, but for me personally even if i was buying a hard core track car like a gt3 I would still want a manual for the enjoyment standpoint. I have driven and owned every kind of transmission, 6mt,auto,dct,smg. Now if I was racing for competition I would want the fastest solution possible, if I want a car for my driving pleasure and some casual weekend track days, I want the most enjoyable solution. And I disagree that they saved money by doing this, they could have used one of there manual gear boxes from a prior model. I just dont see the logic behind not giving the customer an option.

I agree with you - I'd prefer a 6 or 7MT as well in the GT3, but the car was designed with the new PDK-S, offering it with an optional manual transmission didn't fit the overall design, and would've been too involved. The goal was to make it the fastest GT3 ever, and the engineers overruled the old school fans within the marketing department. It is quite interesting how they designed the GT3, a 6 or 7MT wouldn't work.

I think what will happen is that 997.1/2 GT3's (RS's) with the 6MT become very sought after 911's in the very near future, and they'll hold their value even better now.